cat's outta da bag now. but i'm sure your name will be there (Technical
Editor, Chuck Larrieu, CCIE 82**) on the front of every text.
;-)
-e-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:11 AM
Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
> dammit, Leigh Anne, now EVERYONE will know who to blame for any technical
> errors they catch! ;->
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:53 AM
> To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The New Guy
> Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
>
>
> To determine whether the question you have is right or wrong, take
> 172.21.134.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses
does
> this mask give you?
>
> 172.21.128.0 through 172.21.135.255. Now does that represent the range of
> IP addresses you've been asked to summarize? I think not.
>
> Let's try your answer. Take 172.21.136.0 and apply the mask
255.255.248.0.
> What range of addresses does that mask give you?
>
> 172.21.136.0 through 172.21.143.255.
>
> Does it fit the criteria for the question? Does it represent
172.21.136.0
> and 172.21.143.0?
>
> Chuck's comments about the "lazy no good subcontractor" is kind of funny,
> because he's been an absolutely awesome technical editor for Sybex's new
> CCNP exam series...
>
> (-:
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Chuck Larrieu
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
> >
> >
> > Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;->
> >
> > seeing as 134 is 10000110, and is in no way relevant here, I would
suggest
> > that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write /
> > proof / tech
> > review / whatever is wrong.
> >
> > welcome to the world of study materials.
> >
> > best wishes
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > The New Guy
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:19 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: route summarisation question [7:19970]
> >
> >
> > A buddy and I are currently preparing for the BSCN exam.
> > One of the review questions involving route summarization is as follows:
> >
> > 172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ??
> >
> > We both came to the same conclusion:
> >
> > ^
> > 172.21.136.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001000.00000000
> > 172.21.143.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001111.00000000
> > ^
> >
> > Both addresses have the first 20 bits in common so the summarized
address
> > would
> > be:
> > 172.21.136.0/21
> >
> > However, Cisco says the answer is 172.21.134.0/21
> > Can someone please confirm we summarized this route right. I
> > think the test
> > from Cisco is wrong, typo or something
> >
> > Dyland
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=20014&t=19970
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
